The system can't work without private counsel

Especially when government officials become involved that may be suspect.

Some of it falls under interfering in freedom of speech.

There are these strong arm tactics they can use against counselors and friends by just questioning them over and over again and using up a lot of people's time.

People ought to be free from this kind of harassment.

In high visibility cases they also may need protection from ambush style interviews from the press.

A sworn deposition relevant to the rights of the person in question--myself in this case--should be enough to satisfy government officials and the press.

The woman who was assigned to me as my legal counsel in Valleywise was a woman who was sexually molested as a child and because of her shame was never able to bring her persecutors to law. She was convinced that I was that type of person.

Doctor Wee and the two others that saw me off into a van when I was leaving the Met were told that I did not care about my family. When I witnessed that I did love my family, they knew these people were lying to them about how I felt about my family. They also knew from Annette that they had been asking my sister Amy improper questions about her sex life.

Keep in mind that Amy was perhaps guilty of moral transgressions but nothing criminal and that they were putting her to shame. Annette relayed that as well. Annette liked Amy and Amy told me that Annette was really nice. I am sure that Annette really liked Amy and felt sorry for her.

In the good cop, bad cop scheme of things Annette was the perfect good cop because she would believe whatever the bad guys told her.

Annette was molested by her father and went to several social workers trying to get her father to act more like a father but she said it was all unsuccessful. She had many sexual partners and didn't have a gauge to judge what is right and wrong because she had no steady male sexual partners or male influences.

Later after my fellow patients in the Met came under protection, her former sexual partners were able to convince her that she had been duped and that I was really a person that wanted to keep sexual relations within the bounds of marriage and that my enemies were really dishonest people trying to cover for molesters working in the government. She is also the kind of person who won't shut up when she is told to.

She, like Martha, is also the kind of person who sees safety, when you see something wrong, in telling everyone you can about it. She knew so much detail of what went on in the Met to me that they had to kill her to shut her up. I don't think my fellow patients would feel comfortable telling about how she was afraid they were going to kill her. In the end she was faithful to her friends and the truth. I think she considered me her friend because she really liked Amy and wanted to make things up to me.

Someone recently said, "Eff you guys." And they got away with it. I would like to give people alternatives. Essentially what this person was saying was, "You can live with the consequences of your actions" or "I don't care what happens to you."

And what is a c---sucker? Someone that takes advantage of other's needs for comfort in order to get what they want and perhaps even betray them.

And what is a effing c---sucker? Someone that takes advantage of other's needs for comfort in the extreme.

Think about it. What position am I in? I am a person that needs a private relationship with lawyers, doctors, counselors and friends for my personal health and comfort. Don't you think? I think my present doctors, counselors and friends are people that care enough about me that they want for me to have a private relationship with them.

How can anyone have any peace of mind or any hope of comfort when there are these people out there who will interfere with people whose job or duty it is to grant you peace and comfort? As long as there are such people empowered they will rule with a reign of terror. The government is supposed to insure that the general populace has such rights, not take them away.

Several times there have been these phony, unauthorized attacks on people in our city and planet in the name of off-worlders with no real authority. There should be a law that we be allowed to fight back against these people and use our superior tech to do so since it is their ultimate goal to continue these attacks until they have gained control of our superior technology. Since foreign security agents that have been stationed on our planet have proven untrustworthy, we ought not to trust foreign security agents in foreign jurisdictions to capture criminals.

They have already demonstrated their willingness to sacrifice their own criminal elements as they have with the good doctor. This is why many guilty parties seem to be getting killed when attempting to arrest them.

Our own security agents ought to be allowed to investigate these security breaches and be allowed to use our superior technology to do it on other planets. We also ought to be allowed to authorize others that we trust on other planets to work on our behalfs and to authorize them to use our equipment.

Since others on other worlds have demonstrated that they falsify records, those investigating security breaches on other planets ought to be allowed to seize the records of suspicious regimes on other planets and take control of their other technology since they have demonstrated that they use it against us.

Also since this kind of thing has occured on other planets and our technology has proven to be superior, we ought to be allowed to investigate wrongdoing on cities of other planets if they want to authorize us to do so and use the same powers that we use to investigate wrongdoing on our planet for the sake of other planets.

When I was off my meds and suffering things like surveillists giving me impressions to jump up on the reception desk at 209 W Jackson, I was carrying around a sign claiming to be the theological leader of the universe. I don't think I should be held responsible for things I did at that time. The bad guys wanted me to do a lot of crazy things like carry around that sign and carry the knife at the time of the arrest.

Is it clear by now that we should all be interested in these intruders ties to the universal media, especially who is in charge of the Jerry Springer type shows, and especially those who regulate the universal media?

Now you know I am all into language. I want to get into another language thing. Let's look at the word "terrorist." Essentially a terrorist is not a human being. It is someone that has no rights. It is a non-being and not worthy of compassoin or due process. It is an enemy to all men and the state. It is someone who is inherently guilty and only worthy of contempt.

And how is it that we determine if someone is a terrorist? Someone has to think he is a terrorist.

I am a human being. You cannot think me away from being a human being. Along with the elephant man I would say, "I am not an animal. I am a human being." Many people across the universe have wept when they have seen how I am being inhumanely treated. I want out of this inhuman cage. This is my message to anyone out there who is capable of compassion.

We need to question the use of this word terrorist. Who were the people who started calling people terrorists and wasn't this some kind of plot that has also occured on other planets to take away the rights of innocent human beings that stood against corrupt government officials who wish to take away our fundamental human rights and make us into slaves and rule us with a reign of terror. All of us are afraid of being called a terrorist.

As I have defined it is essentially what a terrorist is. People that continue to use this word as an excuse to take away other human being's rights need to be investigated and charged by the law. People that have done so in the past may need to be investigate and charged as well. Newpapers that use this word as an excuse to take away another human being's fundamental rights also need to be investigated and charged.

The use of this word "terrorist" is being used to promulgate a reign of terror and we have to start doing something about it right now.

The people--not like the people who developed the atomic bomb--who develop technology ought to be able to stipulate by contract how it is to be used and also be allowed to enforce that contract in the case of things that can be used as weapons or for surveillance or other possibly dangerous technologies.

I can't ever recall speaking to Martha Cacioppo-Roginski. But I was in her circle of friends and I guess she knew me through them. She would say I was a nice guy. Debbie Dover was her close friend. She was a very nice Christian girl.

I said that I had opportunities to have sexual intercourse with girls when I was in high school. I never really did. There were times that in retrospect that I realize young women were interested in me as a boyfriend and that perhaps they might be interested in sexual intercourse. That's what I meant.

There was one young woman with a very pronounced feminine figure that I lost control over myself and made an indecent proposal. I died of shame in response to her response.

Later I found opportunity to speak to her very briefly. I quickly told her I was sorry and that I would never do anything like that again and begged her not to tell anyone. She quit school and went to some other school.

I can't remember what she looked like. I'm sure she couldn't remember what I looked like either. Later when surveillists questioned her she mentioned an indecent proposal someone made to her, but when they showed her my picture, she couldn't identify me.

I didn't realize it but it really bothered her that she had told someone about my indecent proposal. She spoke to someone about it and she was advised very solemnly that she should never tell anyone about it. Sometimes men will avoid a woman who puts a man to shame in this way and she becomes a pariah. This was after the so called "sexual revolution."

She left school because she felt she should not have even told her friend of my indecent proposal. In reality what she should have done was reapproach me and explain to me that my proposal was a serious bonding experience and that it was irresponsible to engage in such an activity without being prepared for the consequences--like children. When you put someone to shame like that, it is important to show them an increase of love so they don't perceive you to be an enemy.

Anyway, the guilt for this followed her the rest of her life--like Laurie Mitchell--and it caused her sexual problems. Laurie Mitchell's father wrongly advised her to avoid boys that make indecent proposals.

Anyway this girl had a lot of sexual problems and when she learned of the second go round, she feared that it was me that made the indecent proposal and that she was somehow at fault for my troubles. She killed herself fearing that she would only make things worse and that by already telling that someone--possibly me--had made an indecent proposal, that she had made a great error and the only way to protect me from further difficulties was to kill herself. It had become such a media frenzy that she feared it was me that made the indecent proposal. Also the men had been very serious and mean to her, so that made her feel like she was somehow involved and that perhaps she had done something wrong. These interrogators always try to make you feel like you have done something wrong to see how you respond.

Laurie Mitchell I think is still having problems and if her father would assist her in straightening out these men she put to shame, she would get out of the problems she is in. It is natural to feel disgust at the idea of participating in an eternal bonding experience irresponsibly rejecting the consequences. A woman only needs to explain she wants a man to be responsible for this kind of experience and that was why her disgust caused these men to die of shame.

Sometimes having another responsible man along like one's father or a friend can help to be there when they are explaining things like this. Sometimes it can be less shameful. Sometimes the person who made the proposal can be very angry or feel rejected when the subject is brought up. So it can be a good idea to have a friend along who sees that things proceed with peacefully and with understanding. A note can work too.

What I said to her was, "I want to eff you." That meant, "I want to have irresponsible sexual intercourse with you."

With this girl the thing to do would be to explain the problem with someone else present. That way if she were to encounter me at school alone in the hallway or somewhere it might be possible for me to be brave enough to speak to her and express myself that way. It's important for a girl to let a man know that under better circumstances she might be willing to have sexual intercourse or have some kind of more platonic relationship with me. This presumes that the man who was put to shame was not so angry or out of control that he becomes violent with her or does the same thing all over again. If he knows someone else knows about the proposal, he will be less likely to make more, or worse, become violent.

Usually after being put to shame as I was a man can be trusted to act better. If this young woman were alive today, she would say she was sure I would never make another proposal like that again, because she saw I wouldn't by the look on my face when I apologized to her.

I think this girl was also able to tell that if she was interrogated by these people again they would put her to an endless shame. Under some states of shame people can be manipulated into doing almost anything. She was afraid of that.

Part of what fueled abortion and the "sexual revolution"--like Woodstock--was irresponsible sexual intercourse. There used to be paternity suits. But there began to be so many men that would rather go to jail than pay for childraising finances. And that wouldn't help women's childraising finances. So they became more lenient and would not put men to jail so much. It was more if you could afford to pay. And then there were all kinds of men who would take advantage of foolish women--Rachel's father was one of these--who believed in them. Later they would tell them they never intended to take any responsibility for their children.

It was around this time that women started insisting that they be allowed abortions. If men do not show responsibility, is it any wonder that women will not show responsibility either? Women are responsible for what happens to their bodies and what got them pregnant. But men could get away with it, so women followed their bad example.

It does not cost all that much to raise a child and they can be a lot of fun, but costs have been steadily going up for everything.

Part of the whole problem was also a worsening economy and this has been the way on other planets too. The Rs work things so that the economy gets worse along with responsibility and morals. This is how they kill off the populace once they got all the technology that they want. This is something that should be asked of the people who anonymously run the Anti-Terrorist Bureau or what is known by some as the "thought police."

They just make it impossible for normal people (non-Anti-Terrorist Bureau supporters) to live. And once they have killed off enough people, they are willing to sacrifice their own. They have already demonstrated they are willing to sacrifice their own to maintain their anonymity.

Why do people like Martha act like they hate the world. Satan is the prince of this world or really, the mortal realm. In the mortal realm it appears as if the wicked are going to get everything. It looks like Satan is going to be king in the mortal realm. People like Martha realize there is something wrong with the world and they want to stand against it. If they are presented with a legal system that works to fight against the evil in the world, they will use it to fight. Martha was a true patriot and died a patriot's death. She died for what she believed in, for freedom and her country and her family, her classmates and friends.

Martha felt betrayed by organized religion, but Debbie Dover knew she always believed in God. The only way that freedom is every going to prevail over the prince of this world and keep him from becoming king is for people like Martha to stand against the thought police of this world. What they are trying to control is what people believe.

They want you to believe that some people are not human and don't deserve human rights and that they are the ultimate authority for making such judgements and that if you disagree with them, your belief system is contemptible and you are not human and not worthy of the compassion that a common animal deserves. And that you should be put in a cage and not allowed common human relationships. It is survival of the fittest and they consider themselves the fittest. In reality, they think like animals, the kind of animals like sharks that prey upon themselves.

If they would tell us what to believe, then it is a religion. If they would enforce us to believe it, then it is slavery. I don't think there is room for this kind of religion in the universe. Religions must respect human life and protect the rights of conscience, the right to think and freely choose what one believes.

This religion must not be taught in our schools. Human beings are not animals but are above them and capable of conceiving rights of conscience and freedom.

From Doctrine and Covenants 134:

1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

3 We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

6 We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men owe respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker.

7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.

8 We believe that the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offense; that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed; and for the public peace and tranquility all men should step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment.

9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.

Martha is a very powerful ministering angel in the spirit realm and is ministering to all kinds of brave people just like her all over the universe.

There are sightings of Martha Roginski all over the universe and she is using the language that I use and convincing people that Jesus loves them and approves of them.

It kind of reminds you of Alec Guiness' character just before Darth Vader kills him.

Why do we need an angel for this? We only get angels doing things when there is no other way for their mission to be accomplished. The media and the thought police of the universe have taken great care to see that Martha and her friends (also zipping around the universe as ministering spirits) testimony doesn't get any play. Why else have so many program changes taken place? Because they know you will watch the more violent television programs instead of what is going on. They know what entertains you. WWF wrestling and so forth. You don't want to hear about God. They have brainwashed you into believing that organized religion is going to fail you. Martha's spirit and others have been testifying that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true.

The biggest trick that Satan tries to work on you is to teach you that he is God and that you should obey him because he will hurt you otherwise and make you feel that you are a bad person.